A Study on the Flexibility of Electricity Consumers for the Swedish - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
a study on the flexibility of electricity consumers for
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

A Study on the Flexibility of Electricity Consumers for the Swedish - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 12, 2023 41 likes •345 views

A Study on the Flexibility of Electricity Consumers for the Swedish Context Modelling, Quantification and Analysis of Notice Time Lars Herre Tommy Kovala Christos Papahristodoulou Lennart Sder KTH Royal Institute of Technology

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Lars Herre Lennart Söder KTH Royal Institute of Technology

A Study on the Flexibility of Electricity Consumers for the Swedish Context – Modelling, Quantification and Analysis of Notice Time

Tommy Kovala Christos Papahristodoulou Mälardalen University

slide-2
SLIDE 2

“Time is what we want most, but what we use worst.”

  • William Penn (1644-1718)

8/31/2016 2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

1. Motivation

  • Wind Power Forecast Horizon

2. Demand Response Programs

  • Notice Time

3. Modelling of flexible consumers

  • Demand Bidding with updates

4. Elasticity Review 5. Elasticity Results 6. Discussion & Conclusion 7. Outlook

Agenda

8/31/2016 3

slide-4
SLIDE 4
  • 1. Motivation

8/31/2016 4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

8/31/2016 5

  • Renewable Energies
  • Intermittent Production
  • Uncertain Forecasts

8/31/2016 5

  • 1. Motivation

Demand Solar Wind

slide-6
SLIDE 6
  • Wind power forecast accuracy:
  • Probability for more accurate forecasts improves

8/31/2016 6

  • 1. Motivation: Wind Power Integration

Root Mean Square Error

slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • 1. Motivation: Wind Power Integration

8/31/2016 7

Forecasts

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Balancing in different time frames:

  • Historically:
  • Hydro power
  • CCGT turbines
  • Future:
  • Hydro
  • Storage (el., chem., etc..)
  • Demand Side
  • 1. Motivation

8/31/2016 8

slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • 2. Demand Response Programs
  • Market-based
  • Dispatch-based
  • Control-based
  • Time-based

8/31/2016 9

slide-10
SLIDE 10
  • 2. Demand Response: Notice Time
  • Notice Time: time span between notification and delivery

(Process Management: Order Lead Time)

8/31/2016 10

The stages of a Demand Response Event, adapted from: [Source: SEDC, “Mapping Demand Response in Europe Today,” 2014.]

slide-11
SLIDE 11
  • 2. Demand Response: Notice Time
  • Assume ε to decrease as notice time decreases

8/31/2016 11

Elasticity ε

  • 1.0
  • 0.1

/ Notice Time

slide-12
SLIDE 12
  • 3. Continuously Updated Demand Bidding

8/31/2016 12

slide-13
SLIDE 13
  • 3. Continuously Updated Demand Bidding

8/31/2016 13

slide-14
SLIDE 14
  • 3. Modelling
  • Continuously Updated Demand Bidding: wind decrease

8/31/2016 14

slide-15
SLIDE 15
  • 3. Modelling
  • Continuously Updated Demand Bidding: wind increase

8/31/2016 15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Estimated price elasticity

  • Exclude non-price related effects

Own-price elasticity for instant response

  • Estimated for the simple setups of Time-Of-Use pricing

and the complex setups of Real-Time-Pricing.

  • 4. Elasticity Review

Time 00-06 06-08 08-10 10-16 16-18 18-20 20-00 Elasticity E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 Time Low Peak Period Low Elasticity E1 E2 E1

8/31/2016 16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Assumptions 1. Different approaches for elasticity estimation give similar results. – Difficult to find projects/articles with similar approaches and models from which elasticity has been estimated. – A general lack of published own-price elasticity estimates. 2. The relation between elasticity estimations from different setups tested in the same project should be similar to

  • ther projects.

3. Notice times described in phrases like “Day-ahead” can be associated with a certain number of hours.

  • 4. Elasticity Review

8/31/2016 17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

In 2012/2013 EU’s Joint Research Center reported from 281 smart grid projects in 30 European countries. Only 65 (23 %)

  • f the projects involved consumer engagement.
  • Projects have included up to 2000 participating

consumers, generally biased towards volunteers with specific interest in this development.

  • In the 65 consumer engaging projects in Europe two

projects included any version of the word ELASTICITY in the project description. – Commercial and industrial consumer

  • 4. Elasticity Review

8/31/2016 18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Summary of results from residential US DR-pilots (Shariatzadeh et al., 2015): Maximum peak reductions percentages reached

  • Avg. for projects including technological assistance: 38 %
  • Avg. for projects without technological assistance: 27 %
  • Avg. for Critical Peak Pricing: 34 %
  • Avg. for Time Of Use pricing: 17 %
  • Avg. for Real Time Pricing: 16 %

There are apparent benefits for certain program setups!

  • 4. Elasticity Review

8/31/2016 19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

PREVIOUS PROJECTS: A search on Google Scholar for PRICE ELASTICITY ELECTRICITY ”DEMAND RESPONSE” has almost 7000 results

  • Early studies (1977-2000) on the “close-to-hourly” price

elasticity of households’ electricity consumption seem to have been dominated by Time-Of-Use (TOU) pricing projects.

  • Lately Critical-Peak-Pricing (CPP) and Real-Time-Pricing

(RTP) have taken over the scene.

  • Concluded: residential consumers have lower own-price

elasticity for RTP-programs than for TOU pricing, a result of information costs. (1)

  • Difficult to compare the results and price elasticity

estimates from these different projects

  • 4. Elasticity Review

8/31/2016 20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

”Notice time”-dependent elasticity

  • TOU has a static/indefinite notice time,
  • CPP and RTP use different notice times depending on DR-

program structure.

  • Emphasis in articles on presenting notice times and

description of the standards for the communication with consumers has been low. Objective for this study:

  • Gather the results from at least 15 DR-projects spread over

the three types of pricing for DR-programs, where the notice time is explicitly presented.

  • Analyze the possible relation between notice time and own-

price elasticity.

  • 4. Elasticity Review

8/31/2016 21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

From California SPP (Faruqui, 2005): 1. Adding assisting technology to DR-program : + 15 % (more elastic) 2. Changing from static to day-ahead notice time: - 34 % (less elastic) 3. Changing from static to day-of notice time: + 18 % (more elastic) Other pilots with multiple DR-programs:

  • (1) is supported by findings in NJ PSE&G RPP (Faruqui

and Sergici, 2010)

  • (3) is supported by findings in Washington GOPP

(Hammerstrom, 2007)

  • 5. Elasticity Results

8/31/2016 22

slide-23
SLIDE 23
  • 5. Elasticity Results

8/31/2016 23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Averages without elasticity estimates from old projects (before 2000):

  • Avg. for all projects: -0.25
  • Avg. for projects including technological assistance: -0.11
  • Avg. for projects without technological assistance: -0.20
  • Avg. for static notice time: -0.34
  • Avg. for day-ahead notice time: -0.03
  • Avg. for day-of notice time: -0.11
  • Not the hypothesized effect from technology…!
  • 5. Elasticity results

8/31/2016 24

slide-25
SLIDE 25
  • 5. Elasticity Results

8/31/2016 25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

How can comparability be assured in price elasticity estimation for DR-projects?

  • Challenges

– Hourly or averages for all peak hours – Exogenous causes for demand increase – Different price ratios

  • Suggestion

– Presenting detailed results hourly within the peak hours.

  • 6. Discussion & Conclusion - Elasticity

8/31/2016 26

slide-27
SLIDE 27
  • 6. Discussion & Conclusion

CU-DB model:

  • Enables consumers to be updated & participate
  • Consumers in competition with flexible generation in

forward markets

  • Opens the opportunity for both bidding parties to increase

their utility in consecutive market places

  • Risk of deterministic consumers is minimized
  • Wind power producers may exploit market power by

strategically bidding with a lowered wind power forecast

8/31/2016 27

slide-28
SLIDE 28
  • 7. Outlook
  • In CU-DB model: both forecast error magnitude and notice

time affect the market equilibrium

  • Market with updates can be beneficial for improved

integration of renewables.

8/31/2016 28

Static Tariffs Day-Ahead Intra-Day Forecast Error Very High (>10%) High (10-5%) Medium to Low (5-1%) Demand Elasticity Medium Lower Higher

slide-29
SLIDE 29
  • 7. Outlook

?

8/31/2016 29

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Thank you

8/31/2016 30

Lars Herre Lennart Söder KTH Royal Institute of Technology Tommy Kovala Christos Papahristodoulou Mälardalen University